Old School

I’m not a big fan of the term “new school”. In the same way, I don’t like “old school”. I mean, I do like the part where Frank shoots himself with that tranquilizer dart, but I don’t like the use of the term outside of that context. Even so, old schools do exist, as do new schools. I, by virtue of my age and my attitude problem, which one bold, yet sheepishly anonymous, commenter has described as “old British humor“, hail from the new school. I suppose he should have spelled that h-u-m-o-u-r, but he didn’t, because his spelling isn’t the best. I see life a bit differently than does my parents’ generation, and that’s, I suppose, exactly how it should be. I also differ in how I practice real estate, and how I view deals. I’m currently assuming my view is the new school, because I’ve long battled against what I perceive to be the old school.

Old school real estate concepts are relatively lame, but one who holds those views cannot really be blamed for adopting that approach. See, real estate school, all 10 weeks of it, or however long it takes to prove that you can, indeed, fog that mirror, is really keen on teaching future Realtors (who mostly then become future mortgage brokers/insurance salesman/ barristas) how to act and how to properly represent their clients. The theory goes, if you represent a seller, you must do everything inside the bounds of law to get that seller the highest possible price. Note I didn’t say inside the bounds of good taste. As an agent of a seller, we are to max that price as best we can, so says The Real Estate Manifesto.

This is the old school. My dad, in his 70 years, has been a fan of this old school. Back when I was impressionable, he tried to impress upon me that we must, at all times, get that seller the best price. If the seller wouldn’t go to a lower price, that didn’t matter because the seller’s wishes are what we must abide. Never mind that the seller is unreasonable, because the seller is the boss, and the boss is always right. Or is he? Questioning that norm would be to go against the old school, and questioning that with rigor is what qualifies for admission to this new school.

I would argue that what is in the best interest of the seller is always different. If a seller inherits a property and is very short on cash, what’s in the best interest of that seller? To hold the property for ions while waiting for a buyer to pay some imagined premium? Or selling quickly, processing the deal to take the cash home to pay the mortgage on the house he calls home? This is an example of where price doesn’t matter as much as expediency, but it may be an extreme case. What about a normal case, what about a seller who has a house that’s not worth the $700k he wants for it, but is worth the $600k that a buyer has just offered him. What if that house is really worth $575k, and the $600k is a fantastic price which would be readily gobbled up if only that $700k price tag hadn’t been haphazardly applied by the seller some months prior?

In that case, is it best to honor the seller’s wishes and beg the buyer to come up? Sure it is, for a bit. What if, after so much begging, the buyer stays firm and doesn’t move upwards in that price because he knows his $600k price is accurate? Should the agent still beg the buyer for more, or should she go back to the seller and beg him to take less? What if, to properly represent a seller, you need to slap the seller a bit and tell him this is his deal and if he doesn’t take it he’ll be forever wishing he did? That’s what I think should be done, because blindly following a subjective list price isn’t representing anyone.

Today, sellers have some form of liquidity. They have confidence, and in many cases, they have far too much of it. If a seller has a mortgage and a high tax bill and a history of a property going unsold, should that seller stick to a subjective number or sell for a quality price to a present buyer? I’d argue until I’m blue in the face that a plump, pretty bird in the hand is still far better tasting and easily more fulfilling than those two that might be in the bush. To represent a seller doesn’t mean to always hope for the next buyer, it means to narrow ones focus on the buyer in the room and pleasantly take their money to your bank.